If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Boston bombing suspect charged, will not be treated as enemy combatant

The White House said Monday that the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing will not be treated as an enemy combatant, in response to calls from Republican lawmakers to consider that option for the sake of intelligence gathering.
The announcement came as a federal complaint was filed against suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Fox News has learned that the suspect made an initial appearance in front of a federal magistrate judge at the hospital where he is still being treated. No plea was entered.
The complaint charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction at the marathon one week ago, an attack that killed three people and injured more than 200. The document authorized the death penalty or life imprisonment to be sought.

Not treated as an enemy combatant, but charged with using a weapon of Mass Destruction? I thought there was no such thing as a weapon of mass destruction? At least when Bush was in office they denied they existed. I am glad he is charged though. He could get the death penalty; and with Eric Holder being the one to decide, I look for him to rot in federal prison for life. They won't send him to Gitmo.

He is a citizen on American soil and in my opinion should be tried as a citizen.
And then a hanging immediately following the trial.

I agree with you on the first part.

The second largely depends on the role this 19-year-old had. Remember the sniper case, back in 2002. The older man was running the show and the kid (a nephew I believe) was under his influence and control. We may have something similar going on here.

The second largely depends on the role this 19-year-old had. Remember the sniper case, back in 2002. The older man was running the show and the kid (a nephew I believe) was under his influence and control. We may have something similar going on here.

Without older brother around (since younger brother ran over him and killed him dead), there is no way to know if older brother was running anything. Although the defense is already running that angle.

Without older brother around (since younger brother ran over him and killed him dead), there is no way to know if older brother was running anything. Although the defense is already running that angle.

Remember the sniper case, though. The older sniper was definitely telling the younger guy what to do. Also, from what I've been hearing in this case, the younger Chechen brother spent a lot of his time wasted. Stoner.

Remember the sniper case, though. The older sniper was definitely telling the younger guy what to do. Also, from what I've been hearing in this case, the younger Chechen brother spent a lot of his time wasted. Stoner.

Well, we'll see.

The sniper case was different. The older man had been a stepfather to the younger one, and had been influencing him/brainwashing him for years. He had cut him off from people who may have intervened and controlled his access to books, music, newspapers/media, and kept him away from school. He created a kind of Manchurian candidate in the kid, and manipulated him into killing people.

This is not the same. The 19 year old appeared to have adjusted well to living
here-made friends, was liked, etc. His brother never really did, other than that he got married at some point. Even if the older brother did manipulate the younger one into the plot, the younger brother was older than the DC sniper kid when his brother started trying to radicalize him. This young man bears a lot more responsibility for his actions than the kid in the DC sniper case-and I use the terms "man" and "kid" on purpose, because the DC sniper was 17 when he was apprehended, and this guy is 19.

I want to make it clear, though, that I am not overly sympathetic to the DC sniper case, it's just that there is a difference from a psychological or social history kind of standpoint that is probably why that kid got a life sentence and not a death sentence.